Free speech and secret ballots

I have culled this comment from one of Professor Bunyip’s threads. It is from one our regular threadsters Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

Anonymous comments are similar to the Secret Ballot in elections. They allow truly free speech, untramelled by the constraints of employment, family and acting your age. It’s what we really think, made public. That’s why elections are sometimes such a shock to politicians who believe they have all bases covered.

Very good. A somewhat controversial view that I hadn’t previously considered.

It’s already starting with blogs and online publications in the advertising industry sector. The Communications Council is pushing for an end to anonymous commenters by “asking” publishers to record IP addresses and/or creating a registration system.

And lets not forget the Media Inquiry and Prof. Disney, who earlier complained (dissenting) discussion on the internet was damaging democracy.

No doubt anonymous comments will soon become a thing of the past; as will any criticism of the current Rainbow Government in public fora, driven by Stalin’s finest: Milne and Brown.

I couldn’t agree more. The anonymity of the internet is highly desirable, in that we can express views, which today could have undesirable consequences at work, family & others.
As Gab says, The Communications Council would like to be the next Big Brother watching over us.
That we don’t need!

I can see that anonymity is important – in my position I need it otherwise I wouldn’t comment at all – but the honourable man in me still feels odd that I’m not standing behind my opinions publicly.

Anonymity also allows for instant, ill-considered posting with no consequences for reputation. I’m not sure that lack of accountability is good. No matter how intelligent or well-informed we are, public accountability drives reflection and humility. Even (or especially) our brainiacs need that.

Agree daddy dave, but we need to be clear on the circumstances whereby anonymity may be lost.

Surely it should be limited at most to law enforcement agencies investigating criminal behaviour, or the orders of a court. This would mean that bad laws or judgements could still getcha (eg Bolt) but that is another problem. However this would be better than the politically motivated, non-judicial bodies that are the preferred solution for the totalitarian green/left.

Anonymity is a major protection against spiteful or damaging actions from those who disagree with you and who are in a position to hurt you. That’s why it is important for free speech. It is a freedom as essential as that of the Ballot Box. Hecklers in the old-style political meetings didn’t shout out who they were either and weren’t always known.

Personnas created online can have existence as just that, totally created lives; or they can reflect very real individuals.

For the record, Lizzie Online is not fundamentally dissimilar to Lizzie Offline, with a few tweaks here and there to maintain the cover and allow the joi de vivre and je ne sais quoi that is part of my mental apparatus and inner life to enter into the digital discourse. The cover gives me freedom. I think better undercover. I tell myself it must be the writer in me (there’s one lurking somewhere within I’ve always felt and bloggs are an ideal test-bed as well as an ideal procrastination). Commenting on blogs is also a journey of self-discovery. I surprise my self sometimes with my own opinions.

I think it important to protect my screen reputation quite jealously. I agree with Daddy Dave and Lazlo that a screen presence carries a responsibility, moral as well as legal. In that sense, I realise I am fully accountable for myself online as much as I am offline, in fact more so. I don’t think people should chop and change with their screen personnas either, although Bird is fun when he does it (because we know it is him). I have a particular view of you all here on the Cat, and that’s the way I like it. Over time, the little self-disclosures are a tease too, both ways, yours and mine. But no-one is getting the ongoing story of my life and I don’t seek yours. My online personna is about argumentation, and this on the Cat is always intellectually interesting.

I could not do this, here on the Cat or elsewhere, without anonymity. Without anonymity, I would be too embarrassed to be seen as so opinionated (you don’t know what my sister is like to me), too exposed to censure and payback from some who are still in a position to hurt me (I know and have worked with a lot of lefties and have insider knowledge of their ways and lefties btw are not the only nasty people around), and too worried about bringing unnecessary hurt and confusion about me to others (even some nicer lefties, some of whom are family).

The things I say politically are things that I believe should be out there in the public arena, not hidden among trusted friends and often implied but not spoken of elsewhere. So my online personna is the extension of my trusted fiendships. The culture of political correctness is one of oppression; basically Gulag territory. Anonymity on the internet (and on talk-back radio btw for some but not for me) is essential to a healthy political culture.

Have no doubt that those against freedom will try to stop anonymity. Our saving grace is that they will be soon hoist on their own petard if they do.

I don’t really agree with the anonymity. It allows people to say harsh, judgmental, unkind things which is much less likely to occur if a person uses their name.

If you have something to say then I believe you should be prepared to identify yourself – that way integrity of opinions expressed is served and trust can be established.

(I note people are generally respectful on Catallaxy, but other sites that deal with hot topics, say, religion, atheism, same sex marriage can become very nasty very quickly with people hiding behind pseudonyms).

I recognise one problem using your own name is that someone may wish to track you down – possibly for bad reasons. Therefore no email address and no address seems a reasonable compromise.

Anonymity is required at the ballot box because of the asymmetry involved in the relative power of coercion between the State and the individual.

JC is the obvious case in point. As his weirdo post above clearly demonstrates.

I asked last night about hiding text on recoverable email or sms messages. I could (but chose not to) have a work-provided Iphone and IPad. And the IT dept lads and lassies are not contactable right now to find out how this is done on a network system which still records the email exchange as having occurred, though with limited information.

But it appears that the need to hide text and even email addresses has been accommodated in the latest technology, probably by the simple use of passwords combined with the blind copy option in addresses.

You not only define weird, you also define the worst of the worst elements about the web and why people with obvious mental disturbances should not be allowed to have a web connection let alone help treat patients.

Now go back to Bird’s bog and pretend you’re married to me…. and keep dreaming.

JC not sure what you’re getting at but my view is that
if you have a conviction or opinion then why hide behind a nom de plume
I’ve ploughed through what Elizabeth says above but in my view a nom de plume simply diminishes your opinion (but that’s just my view) and I can see above how many words can be used to defend anonimity

The secret ballot may not stay so secret in future. I’m thinking online votes cast for elections. Let’s face it that’s the way we’re heading and you cannot convince me that online votes will be tamper-proof.

Personally, I don’t know enough about the web or identity theft to put my real name up. I plead ignorance as defence.But I do feel a tiny tinge of guilt when the subject is raised in the company of ” real namers” but otherwise, fuck that, it’s about security.

Sinclair, there would be even more surprises in a secret ballot outcome if there were no anonymous comments available to show the way people were actually thinking. Polls are a poor second best to blogs for this purpose. Blogs also allow a wider discussion of issues as well as an open one. And many people are just plain shy unless anonymous.

David Palmer, people employed by the State and making comments would be readily aware of the “asymetrical power of coercion” owned by the State. Coercive power is not just about police forces etc. People are enmeshed in a variety of complex power relationships in their lives, and these relationships influence their desire for anonymity in their political opinions. With anonymity such people are permitted the privilege of political expression extra to the Ballot Box.

Perhaps Jarrah, a more honest person would have put in the latest election results where people were interviewed as having been through several times to vote Democrat, and the media interviewees thought nothing of it?

I confess it was people like Val and others who gave me the courage to use my real name. I have posted on other blogs under an alias but I find it encourages me to be a bit impulsive and reactive rather than think before I speak…. But I understand why others might not feel in a position to ‘out’ their real identities.

I basically use my real name. However I don’t much care what people use as their online ID so long as they don’t chop and change all the time. Chopping and changing means that the online version of a person is not even accountable for their previous online version. It’s like living with a shape shifter.